Drew Wutka
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Mon Oct 27 13:17:45 CST 2003
I still don't see that guarantee. If you have a form, that gets the first record, if it sets the flag when it pulls it, the next form opening will get the next record, and continue the process. It is going to take LONGER to 'peel' the records. Drew -----Original Message----- From: Frank Tanner III [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:41 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question. That's because I *AM* a network engineer...hehehe By profession I tend to think modular....hehehe My boss wants a guarantee of no overlapping. This is the only way I can think of doing it without coding mountains of logic into each form that I am creating. The more logic I have to put in to account for every possible contingency the larger the chance for errors becomes. Peeling off one record and storing it in a temporary table will allow me to use the same logic over and over again, plus guarantee that there will be no overlaps. --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote: > ...I'm sorry Frank but this doesn't sound like much > of a "reason" at all > ...you're violating data normalization rules all > over the place and creating > tables where a simple flag field and query would be > much more apropos ...I > realize that you may not control things as much as > you'd like but this > sounds like something a network engineer would build > rather than a database > designer ...I thought Drew was on the mark before > and even more so now :(((( > > William Hindman > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want > liberty in your lifetime? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Tanner III" <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem > solving" > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:55 PM > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > Question. > > > > Because the back-end tables are going to be > accessed > > by several people at once and we want to avoid ANY > > possibility of duplication. > > > > The reason why we're moving them to different > tables > > after processing is for marketing to keep track of > > different functions based upon the data in tables > > specific to certain criteria. IE. Customers that > > fill out a questionnaire go into one table, > customers > > that decline to go into another table, and > customers > > that would like to answer the questionnaire later > go > > into yet another table. > > > > The front-end itself has to be as generic as > possible > > yet cover all contingencies based upon what > someone is > > doing at a particular given point in time. > > > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote: > > > Just curious why you would want to physically > 'move' > > > the data, instead of > > > just adding a field to track the 'status' of it. > > > You could have a byte > > > field where 0 is 'new', 1 is 'in use' and other > > > numbers could represent > > > where the data 'ends up' as you put it. > > > > > > Drew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Frank Tanner III > > > [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com] > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:41 AM > > > To: Database Advisors > > > Subject: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > Ok....Here we go. Hang on to your > > > bloomers....hehehe > > > > > > I am using a sort of "check out" system in order > to > > > ensure that duplicates are not contacted. It > works > > > like this... > > > > > > I have a back-end database table that is my > master > > > table of records. I want my people to click a > > > button > > > called "Get Information" that will read the > first > > > available record into a "make table query" to > create > > > a > > > temporary local front-end table and delete it > from > > > the > > > master table in the back-end. Sort of like > checking > > > out a book from the library. Once this record > is > > > pulled from the master table in the back-end, it > > > will > > > never go back into that back-end table. it will > go > > > into other back-end tables, depending on the > > > disposition of the information. Sorta like > this... > > > > > > Get Information pulls "next available record" > from > > > tbl_customer_info. Preferrably via a make table > > > query, and stuffs it into a front-end table > called > > > tmp_customer_info and completely removes said > record > > > from the back-end tbl_customer_info table. > > > > > > Once the local work has been done it will be > "saved" > > > to a different back-end table and the local > table, > > > tmp_customer_information, will be > cleared/deleted. > > > Thus the need for some sort of make table type > of > > > query. Then the next time that a user clicks > the > > > Get > > > Information, this process starts all over again. > > > > > > I'm kind of at a loss as to how to do this. Any > > > ideas? Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > AccessD mailing list > > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > AccessD mailing list > > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com